Majorityrights Central > Category: The Structure Project

All great movements are popular movements. They are the volcanic eruptions of human passions and emotions, stirred into activity by the ruthless Goddess of Distress or by the torch of the spoken word cast into the midst of the people. - Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf

As I have written a few corrective words for the “normie” struggling to process Italian fascism from the standpoint of his or her received liberal wisdom, I thought I might extend the dread offence to writing if not about the German equivalent, exactly, at least about a photograph of perfectly normal Germans of the pre-war period, which I saw long ago.  Or I would begin this essay by writing about it.  Or my memory of it, to be more precise, because I did not copy it to file and have never found it on the net since.

Where and when I came across it that one time I have no memory.  It may have been a good couple of decades ago, and may have been via a google search.  Perhaps an eponymous unhappy German-American had posted it on some verboten WN site to demonstrate the undoubted enthusiasm of ordinary Germans for their Führer.  Hundreds of such images were accessible, probably many more then than now.  Those were the days when Google was just a search engine and not a surreptitious guardian and shaper of our thoughts. 

This one was a quite tightly cropped black-and-white image of a section of the crowd, showing perhaps twenty-five to thirty people.  From memory, they were waiting at the roadside, (I think) behind some metal crowd-control barriers.  One presumes, of course, that the wait was for Adolf Hitler’s motorcade to pass by.  That was hardly an unusual photographic subject for the time.  National Socialist ideology was in its pomp; and pomp and pride, power and purpose were precisely what the uniforms, the rallies, the architecture, the idealised presentation of the German folk and of Hitler himself was designed to generate.  The thing is, though, that this photo differed from the general run in so much as there was no Führer in it, or any high NSDAP functionary in his expensively tailored, pseudo-military garb.  There was not a single sun-wheel, not one Roman salute, not one phalanx of blond Hitlerjugend marching en route to Speer’s Zeppelinfeld.  There was just this section of crowd – ordinary men and women, and their children watched over benignly from the other side of the barriers by a couple of soldiers in coal-scuttle helmets.

The soldiers seemed to have no fear of a lurking loner with a luger.  The mood simply precluded that possibility.  Neither was this a crowd in some manufactured hysteria, primed at the sight of the object of its devotion to lose its head and flood forward, blocking the way.  It needed no policing.  This was a crowd with a clear and abiding sense of its own disposition at that moment and in that place.  A positive, pellucid life-energy leapt out of the bromide.  It was in everyone, soldier and civilian alike.  It was in the lad who had clambered up a lamp post, holding on precariously with one hand and waving the other (I think, holding a cap) in celebration.  Every single face was animated and smiling.  Yet the focus of that boisterous microcosm of humanity somehow seemed not to leave its own bounds, as if an invisible centrifugal force was gifting singularity and concert to that which, at any other time, would diffuse and dissipate away.  One could quite believe that it was coming not from an anticipated sighting of the national leader but from the simple, shared gladness in being German in those days.

READ MORE...

This essay is the third instalment in the on-going authenticity series but the second of my reflections on technology and its totalistic, artificialising co-option of the life which we in the West know today and lead, and can lead; and as things stand will know much more co-optively tomorrow.

This is not an especially ideological essay, or a “nationalist” essay.  Its intent is to further shape our consideration of technology’s synergy with Man, the technological animal.  To that end, a distinction will be made between the effects and meanings of the four ages in this, a history almost as ancient as the first hominid.

The essay will be followed by a final offering in this triptych titled Opening and Presence, which will ask what, as the only viable conclusion to be drawn from Martin Heidegger’s valedictory advice on technology, the thought and speech of a naturally emergent life would actually look and sound like in practise - which is also, as it happens, where we begin here!

2. INTO HEIDEGGER WORLD OR INTO THE HYPER-WORLD

“So I ask, in my writing, What is real?  Because unceasingly we are bombarded with pseudo-realities manufactured by very sophisticated people using very sophisticated electronic mechanisms.  I do not distrust their motives; I distrust their power.  They have a lot of it. And it is an astonishing power: that of creating whole universes, universes of the mind.  I ought to know.  I do the same thing.” ― Philip K Dick, 1928-1982, science fiction writer and visionary.

Here is a radical thought.  What shared future, within reasonable material parameters, would our people desire and choose for our progeny?  Let’s pitch that future not too far ahead: say, that of the adult lives of our grandchildren.  What if that question - admittedly, a question which, in its fullness is not easily framed - could be answered definitively enough to then adduce a majority opinion?  What if that opinion could be employed as a filter for politics such that everything incompatible with it, everything restrictive or exploitative of it, is itself restricted or excluded completely?  Other things being equal, what if by careful discrimination and curation, government could create the conditions in which the desire of the nationalist heart can become the reality of our people’s life?

Only eight years (we are told) short of the age of Technocracy, you may be thinking that this is a somewhat naïve and idealistic bet on politicians’ respect for our ethnic person, as well as for the liberty and democracy they affect to hold sacred.  But, actually, it is a bet on the timelessness of human authenticity and its agency in a world in which Power is intent on bringing forth no less human artifice, diminishment, and subjection than ever did Philip K Dick with his Tyrell Corps replicants.  As Heidegger himself said in his long essay Discourse on Thinking, published in 1966, with material written eleven years earlier:

... the approaching tide of technological revolution in the atomic age could so captivate, bewitch, dazzle, and beguile man that calculative thinking may someday come to be accepted and practiced as the only way of thinking.  What great danger then might move upon us?  Then there might go hand in hand with the greatest ingenuity in calculative planning and inventing indifference toward meditative thinking – total thoughtlessness.  And then?  Then man would have denied and thrown away his own special nature - that he is a meditative being.  Therefore, the issue is the saving of man’s essential nature.

That said, what if the present-day Tyrell Corps were, in fact, operating from a sounder psychological and sociobiological basis than we nationalists?  What if authenticity resided deeply enough in, and synergised enough with, technology itself that it - authenticity - transported us not to Heidegger World but to Technocracy?

It is a terrifying thought that we may belong too much to modernity and the technological paradigm to escape even the negatives of its grip upon us ... that its diminishments are also a part of us.  But this is the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from Heidegger’s appeal to his goddess of truth.  Let us examine it.

The ages of the god of the forge

We can clear the way a little by finding a meaning - not necessarily only Heidegger’s - for “what makes up what is most modern technology’s own.”  To that end, we shall not be examining technologies as such, or how men have thought technologically of Nature (the outer meaning of “standing reserve”).  Rather, we shall trace the eras of technology’s making of Man in pursuit of Heidegger’s “construct”.  We will find throughout that development, from its beginning to the present day, technology’s innermost power of human transformation of his body, his personhood, and his mind’s ordering of reality.

First, though, let’s trace the history of Man and his technology and, too, their seeming future.

Technology as such pre-dates the genus Homo sapiens.  Driven by life’s will to survival and continuity, our hominid ancestors increased the possibility of life in their environments by whatever means their creativity allowed.  “Found” clubs and projectiles for hunting and fighting and stones as hand-tools were the beginning of technology.  Although there is a 700,000 year break between the date - four million years ago - assigned to the development of bipedalism and the archaeological evidence for simple “found” tools (from the age of Australopithecus or “Lucy”), it is bipedalism which is usually associated with the evolution of tool-use and tool-making.  Certainly, bipedalism freed the hands for additional tasks, particularly during movement, and there is no better candidate for the absolute point of origin of all our technology today.

There is another 700,000 year break to the Olduwan Industry period of some 2.6 million years ago, to which the oldest knapped stone tools have been dated.  Subsequently, hand actions such as throwing, cupping, and gripping have shaped technology and been shaped by it.  Within the whole organism of the hominid body, including the brain, it was the hand which most directly testified to that wild synergy, and the hand that, by its dexterity and versatility, extended the crude striking of stone against stone and stone against animal flesh to the working of wood, and of skins, clay and natural fibres, and the control of fire.  With each advance the world opened up as an ever more negotiable and manageable evolutionary space.  Our ancient predecessors made themselves as they made the world about them.  For example, they acquired control over fire perhaps 400,000 years ago, setting in motion the rich history of fuel.  So, when Homo sapiens arose between 260,000 and 350,000 years ago, they were essentially pre-technologised, and technology itself was inseparable from human being because both were entered synergetically into the natural, daily processes of life.

This first, organic phase of technologisation, the phase of physical synergy, lasted as the only phase through the pre-Neolithic, when animal husbandry, a true symbiotic form, first developed.  It took another 5,000 years until the Neolithic Revolution of 10,000-11,000 years ago for the cutting and dressing of stone to produce permanent structures (as, for example, at Göbekli Tepe in Anatolia, dating from around 9,000-10,000 years ago, or nearby Karahan Tepe, a ritual site which may be two thousand years older).  Within a millenium or two, crop farming came to (what we know today as) the Fertile Crescent.  The farmer and the stone tool-maker together made possible the urban settlement; and, thereby, civilisation itself.  The metal-worker - Hephaestus at his forge - joined them 3,000 years later.  The potter’s wheel took another 3,000 years to arrive.

READ MORE...

Canterbury, the old surviving English cathedral

James Bowery has raised a question about the cognitive verities of our being-in-the-world, characterising it as a point on a faith continuum.  In a comment on “The final question” thread he writes:

Every decision is an act if not leap of faith.  All our decisions are informed by our limited knowledge and limited intelligence to act on that knowledge.  While we may remain true to ourselves in our phenomenal perceptions, we are on shaky ground the moment we begin to interpret them - yet interpret them we do without so much as a prayer that we may “bracket” them to attain the elusive transcendental attitude.

So we are creatures of faith.

Now, you may wish to interject a qualitative distinction between the kind of faith it takes to, say, interpret a collection of sensations as an object of our world, vs faith it takes to believe in a big hairy thunderer who intervenes in our affairs based on what rituals we engage in, but I would assert that these are on a spectrum of faith.

Well, I do wish to “interject” some qualitative distinctions; or at least to set forth the meaning and relation of things as I understand them.  So, to that end ...

I will not spend too much time on the first, which is the human brain’s rendering of a representative reality from the raw data of the world beyond the organism.  Obviously, the brain stands at the apogee of three and half billion years of evolution, from the first simple cells which sensed light in darkness and succeeded in transmitting that capacity to other cells.  Figuratively speaking, God was light.  Non-figuratively, the whole, limitless noumenal truth is le soleil absolu, but the form in which we limited beings re-cognise it is strictly shackled to planet earth.  My favoured guide Martin Heidegger accepted the Cartesian subject-object duality but placed human being in the “there-then”, which is a human-scale objectification of that whole truth.  But the whole question of how we are evolved to “sense light” therein, how we autogenetically construct from the input of our five senses a sublime simulacrum limited to our own cortex, and how we then filter it through the great external-facing, associative systems, remains; and it is, of course, that most important and ancient mystery which is the Mind-Body problem.

There are many theoretical solutions, the most populous among academics being species of physicalism and emergentism.  With so much post-Christian, blue planet, Gaia thinking prevalent in the West it is perhaps not a surprise that pan-psychism is making a bit of a comeback.  Beyond formal academia, in the badlands, Chris Langan’s CTMU appears to be both pan-psychist and a mathematical proof.  Even by the standards for pan-psychism, it is not taken seriously by academics outside his own immediate high-IQ cohort.  It is at least complete, or claimed to be.  Not one of the other theories are claimed by anyone as adequate at this stage.  All are problematic.  All are contested.  No one has anything even close to a definite and provable account of brain function. 

This is true even of accounts of how the sleeping brain conjures into existence its dream-world.  We know in our waking hours that dreams are brilliant, strange fictions.  But however improbable or fractured a dream may be, once the brain chemistry flows we are totally immersed and certain of the dream’s material reality. One would think that this contradiction might help in the formal search for a solution, but it hasn’t yet.  Anyway, in my distinctly informal estimation, certainty speaks of an evolutionary attention to survival and continuity which is so needful that all that is Mind derives from it and serves it, and so constant that no moment of human experience escapes it, not even what we dream.  The mechanics of it are absolute.

READ MORE...

The purpose of this series of essays is to explore the function and effect of a politics of ethnicity, should it prove possible to bring one to the public life of this land.  Properly speaking, within the layout that is in creation at this site, such exploration has to follow on from the work on The Structure Project, ie, on ethnic nationalism’s principles, parts, and processes, and its episteme.  But that, too, is a new venture not much added to at this point.  So it is cheating a bit to categorise work today under the “The Politics Project”.  But we’re going to do it because, well, I want to!  All of the work on this project will be reflective and propositional in kind, and will concern itself principally with the metapolitics of our lived life.  It will not, therefore, venture on to the ground of political argument or activism as such.

1. STOLEN FIRE, TECHNOLOGICAL APOCALYPSE

“Sometimes his genius goes dark and sinks down into the bitter well of his heart. But mostly his apocalyptic star glitters wondrously” ― Friedrich Hölderlin, 1770-1843, the early-Romantic era German poet whose influence upon Heidegger was so strong. 

Some weeks ago Fróði Midjord and Morgoth livestreamed a wide-ranging discussion on many of the issues which presently concern nationalists.  There was much germane and thoughtful comment, as one would expect.  But one sentiment peaked my interest.  It concerned a sentence offered by Martin Heidegger to Der Spiegel on the occasion in 1966 of the last interview he ever gave.  Publishing the interview was held over at his request until after his death in 1976.  That sentence - “Only a god can still save us” - has, unsurprisingly, assumed the status of a final testimony.  Its resignation to the darkness, along with the temptation to the religious to take it as literally as possible, hacks away at the will, as does all defeatism, and runs in the face of the very spirit of creativity which has, in no small part, led us to our present pass.  I want to challenge that resignation, which I will do in the next instalment.  In this one, though, I will just set out my understanding of “the problem”.

At the outset, and for the clarification of any religious literalists who may read this, neither Fróði nor Morgoth (who, by the way, both agreed with Heidegger’s sentiment) are prone to such literalism.  Obviously, it is not the death of the gods which thinking nationalists abhor but the spiral of disconnection, nihilism and degradation which has come after.  A whole (it would seem) indispensable and vivifying life of the spirit, a whole world of connecting traditions and order, a way of thinking about self and kin, has been swept away, condemning us, so it is said, to a death spiral of our own.  Observations to that effect arrived in our culture within sixty years of the start of the Industrial Revolution, and seventy years before Nietzsche’s Zarathustra spoke on the matter.  For example, Mary Shelley’s 1818 gothic novel Frankenstein is subtitled The Modern Prometheus.

By 1966 the Western half of Heidegger’s Germany was in the full flowering of its Wirtschaftswunder, the post-war economic miracle.  Not only National Socialism’s deeds and dreams but the romantic soul of 18th and 19th century Germany had long since been bombed and burned and carried away in wheelbarrows to the outskirts by the women of the rubble.  What modernity threw up in its place was a Germany of growing civic pride in featureless economic utilitarianism.  In its reflexive, driven focus on a redemption by work and consumption it was as sickly and distancing from the essential as was the worst night-life of Weimar Berlin.  Something American and Jewish had eaten away at the things of the patriotic heart, and substituted the paper-thin public value of loyalty to the corporation.  Perhaps that is what happens in modernity to a people for whom the past is cut off, and may not be visited except with shame, even a patently manufactured shame.  Some miracle, anyway.

This, then, was Heidegger’s Germany at the time of his final pronouncement on the modern and, too, on his grand historiographical revolution, launched with such adventure four decades earlier.  One could be forgiven for thinking that it shows.  The full quote from which those famous words are taken actually reads:

Philosophy will not be able to bring about a direct change of the present state of the world. This is true not only of philosophy but of all merely human meditations and endeavours. Only a god can still save us. I think the only possibility of salvation left to us is to prepare readiness, through thinking and poetry, for the appearance of the god or for the absence of the god during the decline; so that we do not, simply put, die meaningless deaths, but that when we decline, we decline in the face of the absent god.

READ MORE...

The polity is shaped towards our race-replacement by its own deep history of ideas but also, of course, by the history of events which are inextricably linked to those ideas.  The sum of them all constitutes an enormous bulwark against change, pressing us, as people interested in change, to the inevitable conclusion that any serious assault on the citadel of Western elitism and political power must mean a revolution on no mean scale.  A simple change to national politics alone will, in the longer term, be constrained and, finally, erased by the continuing effect of these foundational forces.  Many, and quite possibly all of them, would have to be swept away, too.

I’ve made some rather slipshod efforts in the past to draw up a chart supplying some relational context to these forces.  This time, as part of the working up of a new article for PA’s site, I’ve tried to get everything in, including the elements aiming at control of the future of all humanity.  Doubtless, it’s always possible to keep expanding the range of entities, and I might have missed something important.  Anyway, if there is improvement to be made, do please say where.

Any novel and genuine politics of change must possess a set of interlocking core principles derived from a theory of Man’s reduced condition and a countering and inspiring vision of what he properly is.  That latter must be reflected in the ultimate value advanced by these politics, and the whole must be eminently communicable, indeed politically virulent; and for that people have to know that it is true.  One shortfall in any of these respects and historical purchase will not be possible, even when the prevailing system is grown stale and unproductive, and the people yearn for a relevant and fresh, hopeful way forward.

So poorly mapped out is ethnic nationalism, so poorly has it been served by thinking nationalists, and so unsympathetically, oftimes deceitfully, by liberal academics, that all three of these necessities - structure, ultimate value, and truth - are scarcely addressed at all in any formal sense.  Properly resolved they would advance our nationalism considerably towards becoming the holistic and original philosophy we desire it to be. 

But they are not the only unresolved issues.  The problem of becoming, or human purpose, and the problem of the individual and his freedom also cast a long shadow, as does the problem of the sheer scale of the revolutionary endeavour.  With all that in mind, then, we will now try to make some progress, or at least some useful observations, commencing in this essay with the problems of structure and of becoming.  Value, truth, and the individual must await a part four, and even five.

The problem of structure

As explained previously in this series, we routinely profess ourselves to be ethnic nationalists, espousers of a communicable philosophy.  Really, though, the most that can be said of us is that we are nativists.  Nativism at least has a structure to it.  It is defensive and survivalist.  It is the politics of the place of arising ... home, the source of the people, the parent of their distinctiveness.  It is important.  But it can never rise to the station of a positive, organising system for living ... never get beyond defence of the people’s life and land.

Descriptively, a nationalism of ethnicity must be holistic, naturalistic, existential, authenticising, universal (in the sense of true of all peoples), defensive before it is expansive, and preserving before it is conserving.  As the political expression of the native principle, it is the politics of ethnic genesis on the soil and so of the natural right ... the native right ... to defend kind and home.  It is, then, the active politics of genetic interests, of the kin relation.  As the politics of all settled peoples it is the politics of peace and the complete antidote to liberalism’s post-Christian and anti-European universalism.  It is the politics of consciousness of being.  It is the politics of the authentic in us individually and, therefore, collectively, because consciousness in a people, like natural wisdom in a crowd, is accreting. 

But what are the principles underpinning all this?  How do they articulate socially?  The following (tentatively proposed) structural scheme may take things forward:

It exhibits a rather extensive collection of base principles and, in the upper range, a row of states leading to triads of active processes.  All are arrayed across three distinct but interlocking dynamics, shown here as rising columns.

READ MORE...

Native Man, Pragmatic Man, Nietzschean Man ... but Revolution Man?

On 22nd June 1948 a vessel owned by the Board of Trade but leased to the New Zealand Shipping Company quietly docked at Tilbury.  It disgorged 494 fare-paying black Jamaican passengers: migrants who, at the invitation of the ship-operators, had taken it upon themselves to turn up in our country to improve their lot in life.  This small and novel event precipitated what would quickly become a permanent revolt of the political class against the sovereign people of this land, which itself set off a chain of race/ethnicity-based political, legal, social, and economic actions and reactions.  Inconceivable seven decades ago, these have reached down into every corner of British national life, and have proved absolutely cataclysmic for our people.  They have been conjoined with other immoralities, other political betrayals, each heralding other disasters, such that, in these days, the gravest darkness and uncertainty hangs over even our immediate future.

Any man or woman who finds even some of this troubling and begins to question it already has one foot placed on the long road of understanding that leads to some form of nationalism.  It may take months or even years before the seeker detaches from the old, safe hostilities of left and right, and formulates the notion that the entirety of politics, culture and economics is made horribly, equally destructive by some inhering force or combination of forces.  It will likely take longer still before said seeker also asks what we, as a people, must do to remain not just free or democratic or Christian, or whatever, but who we are.  But then he or she has turned a significant corner.  The people and the people’s everlasting home have been reclaimed from the estrangements of the old ways of thinking, and will not be lost to sightlessness and uncaring again.  With that understanding comes a critique of many other things in this world, such that the whole constitutes an awakening from a deep but general slumber, and a liberation into a new sensing of truth and an intense sensing of identity … of our ethnic person ... of belonging and, most of all, of an existential care.

For the vast majority who accomplish this return it is done alone and osmotically, like a salmon leaving the ocean to return to the place of its arising.  It is a journey of the instinct to an honourable estate, but not a whole nationalist estate.  It is not got from real-world contact with nationalists or any prior ideology of British nationalism.  It is invariably the product of time spent on-line, and had this not been the internet age little of this awakening would ever have been possible.  As it is, the resulting amour propre is nationalism to its possessors, though that singular element of care defines it more exactly as nativism. We might, therefore, justly apply to these good folks the soubriquet “Native Man”.

READ MORE...

Revolution?  What revolution?

Notwithstanding its factual omissions and its very tiresome liberal bias, Wikipedia does have its occasional uses.  For present purposes, one of those is to keep a running record of the political parties registered in the UK with the Electoral Commission, and even a record of those parties which have been de-registered and are now defunct.  Immediately below, then, is an abstract from that record, showing the registration status of all the nationalist and like “right-wing” parties.  Below that is a table logging the fresh-dug graves of nationalists’ electoral dreams.  Together they comprise decades of history of political nationalism in all its ideological forms, and provide a telling snapshot of how ordinary men and women, but extraordinary dissenters, have attempted to make politics in the name and for the cause of our people.

One notable name missing from the log is Patriotic Alternative.  Mark Collett’s repeated attempts to prevail upon the Electoral Commission to register Patriotic Alternative have thus far met only with obfuscation and delay.  One might assume at this point that the Electoral Commission will require to be served with a court order to cease discriminating against PA, as appears to have been the case with the now-registered but deeply forgettable Britain First.  Perhaps the EC is calculating that working people, which nationalists typically are, tend not to be able to afford lawyers’ fees.  Perhaps it is right in that.  Perhaps, anyway, it is driven by government’s interest in hardening its grip on the electoral process as the enterprise which is the Age of the Covid and the enterprise which is the Climate crisis progress, and the political, social and economic environment itself becomes more extreme.

In any case, here are both logs:

READ MORE...